1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sows-Gilts Stocking Rates and Their Environmental Impact in Rotationally Managed Bermudagrass Paddocks

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Maintaining a ground cover greater than 75% and controlling nutrient loading and distribution are considered best management practices for pasture pig operations. These practices improve soil health and water quality, by minimizing runoff containing soil, water and nutrients. Those goals are not easily reached when managing pigs on pastures. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of three sow stocking rates (10, 15 or 25 sows-gilts ha −1) on ground cover and soil nutrient concentrations of bermudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon L. Pers) paddocks managed in a rotational stocking system. Increasing the Stocking rates were inversely related with the deterioration of vegetative ground cover and directly related to soil nutrient loads in the soil. The stocking rates should be kept in the range of 10 to 15 sows-gilts ha −1 to minimize the environmental impact of sows-gilts managed on bermudagrass.

          Abstract

          Ground cover maintenance and nutrients management are key elements to reduce the environmental impact of outdoor swine production. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of sows-gilts stocking rates on vegetative ground cover and soil nutrient concentrations in rotationally stocked bermudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon L. Pers) pastures. Three stocking rates (10, 15 and 25 sows-gilts ha −1) were compared during three 8-week grazing periods. Increasing the stocking rate from 10 to 25 sows-gilts ha −1 decreased the ground cover of the paddocks from 65 to 48%, and increased soil nutrient concentrations (ammonium 47%; nitrate 129%; phosphorus 53%; zinc 84%; and copper 29%).

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century

          Agroecology and industrial ecology can be viewed as complementary means for reducing the environmental footprint of animal farming systems: agroecology mainly by stimulating natural processes to reduce inputs, and industrial ecology by closing system loops, thereby reducing demand for raw materials, lowering pollution and saving on waste treatment. Surprisingly, animal farming systems have so far been ignored in most agroecological thinking. On the basis of a study by Altieri, who identified the key ecological processes to be optimized, we propose five principles for the design of sustainable animal production systems: (i) adopting management practices aiming to improve animal health, (ii) decreasing the inputs needed for production, (iii) decreasing pollution by optimizing the metabolic functioning of farming systems, (iv) enhancing diversity within animal production systems to strengthen their resilience and (v) preserving biological diversity in agroecosystems by adapting management practices. We then discuss how these different principles combine to generate environmental, social and economic performance in six animal production systems (ruminants, pigs, rabbits and aquaculture) covering a long gradient of intensification. The two principles concerning economy of inputs and reduction of pollution emerged in nearly all the case studies, a finding that can be explained by the economic and regulatory constraints affecting animal production. Integrated management of animal health was seldom mobilized, as alternatives to chemical drugs have only recently been investigated, and the results are not yet transferable to farming practices. A number of ecological functions and ecosystem services (recycling of nutrients, forage yield, pollination, resistance to weed invasion, etc.) are closely linked to biodiversity, and their persistence depends largely on maintaining biological diversity in agroecosystems. We conclude that the development of such ecology-based alternatives for animal production implies changes in the positions adopted by technicians and extension services, researchers and policymakers. Animal production systems should not only be considered holistically, but also in the diversity of their local and regional conditions. The ability of farmers to make their own decisions on the basis of the close monitoring of system performance is most important to ensure system sustainability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Home Ranges, Movements, and Habitat Use of European Wild Boar in Tennessee

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book Chapter: not found

              The Impacts of Grazing Animals on the Quality of Soils, Vegetation, and Surface Waters in Intensively Managed Grasslands

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                17 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 10
                : 6
                : 1046
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7621, USA
                [2 ]Departamento de Producción Agraria, E.T.S.I. Agronómica, Alimentaria y de Biosistemas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; mariajesus.villamide@ 123456upm.es
                [3 ]Department of Crop and Soil Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7621, USA; jim_green@ 123456ncsu.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: silvana_pietrosemoli@ 123456ncsu.edu ; Tel.: +1-919-515-0814
                Article
                animals-10-01046
                10.3390/ani10061046
                7341216
                32560507
                d9f441df-def3-4575-b407-48b7ec015003
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 04 May 2020
                : 12 June 2020
                Categories
                Article

                bermudagrass,sows-gilts,stocking rate,ground cover,soil nutrients,pasture-based pig systems,outdoor pig systems,grazing pigs

                Comments

                Comment on this article